Are generations a useful concept?

The concepts of generations and generational differences have received much attention in the academic literature, in the popular press, and among practitioners, policymakers, and politicians. Despite the continued interest, research has failed to find convincing evidence for the existence of distinct generations, commonly conceptualized as broad groupings of birth cohorts (e.g., 1980-2000) that have been influenced by a set of significant events (e.g., economic depressions) and labeled with names and qualities that supposedly reflect their defining characteristics (e.g., Millennials). Further, any differences that have been found in empirical studies, and that have been attributed to generational membership, are more likely due to age and/or contemporaneous period effects. Nonetheless, some researchers, employers, institutions, governments, and many laypeople continue to treat generations like they are a powerful and actionable phenomenon. We address these issues in two ways. First, we review the science of generations, focusing on what is known, what is not, and why the evidence points to the conclusion that generations, as popularly conceptualized, do not exist in objectively quantifiable ways. We also address the disconnect between science and practice regarding generations. Second, we explore alternate explanations for effects that are attributed to generations and review approaches that are both more theoretically sound and empirically supported, including lifespan theory and social constructionist frameworks. Finally, we address connections between assumptions made about generations and concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion at work. Specifically, we address what has been termed generationalism, the belief that members of specific generations possess unique, stereotypic characteristics.

Generations and Generational Differences: Debunking Myths in Organizational Science and Practice and Paving New Paths Forward.

Talk about generations is everywhere and particularly so in organizational science and practice. Recognizing and exploring the ubiquity of generations is important, especially because evidence for their existence is, at best, scant. In this article, we aim to achieve two goals that are targeted at answering the broad question: "What accounts for the ubiquity of generations despite a lack of evidence for their existence and impact?" First, we explore and "bust" ten common myths about the science and practice of generations and generational differences. Second, with these debunked myths as a backdrop, we focus on two alternative and complementary frameworks-the social constructionist perspective and the lifespan development perspective-with promise for changing the way we think about age, aging, and generations at work. We argue that the social constructionist perspective offers important opportunities for understanding the persistence and pervasiveness of generations and that, as an alternative to studying generations, the lifespan perspective represents a better model for understanding how age operates and development unfolds at work. Overall, we urge stakeholders in organizational science and practice (e.g., students, researchers, consultants, managers) to adopt more nuanced perspectives grounded in these models, rather than a generational perspective, to understand the influence of age and aging at work.